general

Okay, overall thoughts.

1: Diversity. Bear in mind, none of this is a complaint, more a simple observation. Nowadays, diversity in film is more of a hot topic. And rightly so, everyone should be represented. However, in films such as this, I wonder if that comes at the expense of historical accuracy. I say I wonder because it's a legit question. I'm in my early thirties, so I wouldn't have first-hand knowledge of that era. So, what I'm getting at. Legit question for those old enough to remember. While it makes for good storytelling, is it realistic that a group on this kind of mission from the US at that time would be this diverse? Ie, so many POC, and women, not to mention one lady who was Asian? Because I'm left wondering, I don't know if that's how it really was, or just because of how movies were made more back then, but I'd expect it to be all white guys. If I'm wrong, I'm not trying to be ignorant, please inform me.

2: Their initial motive for going there was shaky.

3: Samuel L Jackson. Sigh. I love seeing him as a bad-ass, which he does so great. But his character in this was such an idiot. Stereotypical dumb military guy, who couldn't possibly listen to someone else's pov. Short-sightedly obsessed with violence.

4: The grenade guy pointless, poor thing, I laughed. But, I hate it when someone in a movie is willing to sacrifice themselves for their friends, and their friends nearly waste it by hanging back to watch.

5: Didn't care for it ending where it had. Before the credits scene. Left it where Kong still could've killed the rest of them.